The second theory that we focus on is the Marxists theory about education and underachievement, they believes that ruling class rule also as thinkers or producer of ideas further more from their views it could be argued that ruling class ideology is so effective to domination than the forms of coercion such as physical force. Louis Althusser a French Marxist philosopher argues that no class can have power for a long by use of their force so through ideology they can have more effective control because if people’s accept everything by their hearts and minds then force becomes un important, he has given an example of churches in the past which was the main agency for ideological control and today the education because first schools transmit an ideology which tells that capitalism is fair and reasonable and then prepare pupils for their role in the workforce. He added that most are trained as workers and they are told to accept their future exploitation and provide education and qualification to suite their work roles. The Marxists view on school is seen as a middle class institution run by middle class teachers using middle class language, moreover Marxists such as Bourdiu suggest that working class pupils lack the cultural, capital, to achieve in such an environment in addition Marxists believes that capitalists society is unequal because Boweles and Gintis “argue that the rewards on education or occupation are not based on merit but on social background” (Taylor,P, 1995) he argue that a person with a high origin or background is more likely to attend higher qualification , So can we say that social background has an effect on pupils underachievement? “A large body of search has shown that in general, the higher a person’s class of origin the greater their chances of achieving high educational qualifications” (Harlambos, M, 1996), also if we look at the table1 on the appendixes page we can see an evidence to support the theory.
As about the interactionalists , so they argue that education exist to enable individuals to construct themselves, so if we consider this point then it could be proposed that pupils who underachieve are unable to construct their own personalities, furthermore they believe that self full filling prophecy has a big role in education, it means that everyone has a picture of themselves and this picture comes from the reaction of others to them because if others respond to a person as if he is intelligent or dull then that is the time when he would tend to see himself such the other important issue is labelling “A label is a the major identifying characteristic of a person” (Taylor, P, 1996) if a person is labelled lazy even if he do something clever he would still be judged in terms of his label and others will count that as unusual, which as a result this effect on their educational career. The other effect that they believe is negotiation of the teachers because teachers use a set of tactics in order to get control over classroom such a they can make a demand and then compromise or they can give lots of homework and then reduce it another good example would be their punishment and rewards they give to pupils or they can put a condition such as ‘ if you do your homework you wont get punishment, teachers can do all these because they are in a more powerful positions and they have formal authority so finally “Hargreaves believes that the order in the classroom is a negotiated order in the classroom is a negotiated order which is based on an agreement between teachers and students” as a result if we ask ourselves what is interpretive approach and what does it do? “Interpretive approaches tend to focus on small scale interaction they examine the meaning which direct action and the consequences of those meanings for educational careers” (Taylor, p, 1996).
Comparing these three perspective that we viewed seems to be that they are significantly different specially between Marxists and functionalists because functionalists views see education playing a positive role in the society but the Marxists see education playing a negative role. And then we find functionalists views that education transmit the norms and values from one generation to another however Marxists believes that capitalists want to transmit the ideology that capitalism is good and fair and then again Marxists argue that education is not based on merit but it is based on social backgrounds, they believe that a person with a high class background is more likely to attend higher qualification or higher occupations, as if we consider interactionalists theory so we find their views quite different although their views are ideal in some issues with functionalists because they both see education as a benefit for the society in addition interactionsts theory about underachievement says that individuals could not construct their personalities also it describes the other main reasons as a fulfilling prophecy and labelling. However functionalists believe on meritocracy and equal opportunity of education so if we consider it could be proposed that Marxists are more likely to blame society however functionalists and interactionists are not, as a result of the discussion it could be argued that the theories are significantly different.
Our next focus is on feminists, feminism is a social movement which makes women aware of the disadvantages placed on them by men and their aim is to bring equality between male and female also they believe education as an un equality made by male moreover they argue that women underachieve because education is made by males for males they believe that “Educational system as a reproducing gender inequalities in a way broadly suites the needs of capitalism” (Donell, M 1997). The schooling scandal (1983) Dale Spender argues that the relation in the class and the attitudes of the teachers is prepare for male domination and control also he believes that there was a double standard in the classroom, because when boys ask question they were dealt with more respect than the girls. Is education really made for males? Not really because if we look at the table2 on the appendices page we will find that since 1980 to 1994 shows that boys are more likely to underachieve in their GCSE and A levels however nobody knows why but some suggestions argue that girl’s brain’s get mature in the early stages of their lives. A black sociologist believes that education is made by whites for whites. The question of racial and ethnic minorities entered for the first time because of the immigration increasing in Britain as about education the pupils should have the opportunity to develop friendship with peers and relationships with teacher but unfortunately this is an ideal for a lot of ethnic minority students, for an evidence to support the argument please have a look at the table3 in the appendices page.
The theories that I have shown in the assessment are significantly different and we can not judge them as right or wrong because their theories are based on the reasons and the evidence they have or had on a certain time. But one thing could be argued that education exists for the benefit of the society and individuals, as about underachievement in education is hard to know about the main reasons of underachieving certain groups of peoples in particular a particular time. The suggestion of functionalists and interactionists seems to be more fair however if we look at the reports and evidences it is possible to say that there is still a big gap of ethnic minorities underachieving which make us to consider at racism and ethnicity, beside that feminists believes that education is for male however at the present and the last few years we find that boys are more likely to underachieve in the early stages of their education so finally as a result of all the theories we discussed in this essay it could be proposed that self fulfilling prophecy, labelling, racism and social background could effect the situation of underachievement.
(Word count: total 1782 words ‘including 192 quoted words’)
Appendices
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Bibliography
-
Haralambos, M & Holborn, M. (1995) Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, (4th Ed) London: Collins Educational.
- Taylor, P. et al (1996) Sociology in focus, Bath Press.
-
Haralambos, M & Smith, F. et al (1996) Sociology, A new approach, (3rd Ed) East Kilbride: Cambus Litho Ltd.
